Exploring active transportation investments and associated benefits for municipal budgets: a scoping review
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Municipalities play an important role in the planning and development of communities that support active transportation (AT), which refers to human-powered modes of travel, such as walking and cycling. Municipal-level stakeholders involved in land-use and transportation infrastructure planning consider multiple social, environmental and economic considerations to inform decision-making and investments in AT. Evidence around the fiscal benefits of AT investment for local governments has not been systematically identified. This scoping review sought to explore the existing evidence regarding investments in AT and opportunities for savings on municipal expenditures and revenue generation. In total, 7060 records were located and screened; of which 162 full-text articles were reviewed. Ultimately, 23 articles met our inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The available evidence focuses on potential economic benefits of AT in the areas of tax revenues, property values, consumer spending and employment, all of which are relevant sources of revenue generation in municipal operating budgets. An evidence gap was identified regarding AT infrastructure investments and benefits corresponding to municipal expenditures (e.g. maintenance cost savings). Notably, a large portion of literature was published after 2009, suggesting that municipal-level evidence on the fiscal benefits of AT investments may just be emerging.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it